Background: I debated four years at Central Michigan University, back when we did NDT. I coached at CMU as a grad student (1991-1993) as as a temporary faculty member (1999-2000). I coached at the University of Nebraska for two years, prior to coming to Otterbein. I have been at Otterbein for eight years.
Rounds Judged: As of The Frolic, I have judged at the following tournaments this year: Western Kentucky, McKendree, Marshall, Central Missouri Mule Swing, and the Frolic. You do the math.
Stylistic Preferences: I don't care if you speak fast as long as I can understand you, you are using the entire time, you are still a good speaker (not gasping for air, humorous, making good arguments, etc. I also think that you should make a point of looking at the judge as a matter of strategy. I , for one, am not that hard to read. I find confidence pleasing, but excessive cockiness or rudeness a reason to vote against you in a close debate. I say this not to frighten people because my threshold here is high and I have only exercised the right to vote against a cocky debater once in the last 5-10 years. I mean, I think too often debaters do not begin their speeches by saying, "I could concede every one of these arguments, and I still win..." I don't think that's mean, if its true and you are attempting to be nice.
Paradigm: Left to my own, policy-maker. That said, I think policy makers want you to prove that you solve the harm you claim, that your advantages outweigh the disads, etc. I do NOT have to have a disad in order to vote negative.
Do you think topicality should be a voting issue? Yes. When judges say that it isn't, I kind of want my affirmatives to pull out a case on a completely unrelated topic, to see if this will change anyone's mind.
Does there have to be demonstrable ground loss in order for you to vote on T? No, ubut it helps. If you say, I wrote the plan this way couldn't link disads, that likely feeds the negative's T argument.
Would you ever vote on an RVI? Yes, I would. I never thought so, but have seen some incredibly slimy debates in which debaters want to win only by making others drop their arguments. This makes RVI's more compelling to me than they once were. LD was founded on a particular set of principles, and one of them is that you don't win debaters solely because you can talk fast.
Do you strictly enforce NFA rules? Yes, and no. I would say that I think we should be true to the principles of Lincoln-Douglas debate so that it doesn't die out or become something we cannot be proud of having our students pursue. That said, I think most things should be debatable and people who make the case in favor of NFA rules have the advantage of defending something that is worthwhile. So, you must extend the argument that topicality is a voting issue in order to win it. I will listen to argumentation on why a counterplan doesn't have to be non-topical. My personal belief is that they can be topical. But, I will try to let you make these decisions, not me. I also hate kritiks. I just don't think they add much. To me, they are bad disads, counterplans, or justification arguments. You could make them by labeling them this way, but I suspect you won't want to because they will be harder to defend.
Does the negative have to win a disad in order for you to vote negative? No. I would vote on solvency take-outs or topicality. I might vote on inherency, I'd like to say I would. I almost never do.
What kinds of impacts do you find most compelling--enormous impacts or more realistic impacts?
I might as well just say I am old here, but more realistic impacts. Here's the thing, only a lame debater is going to grant you a nuclear war that is completely unlinked to your case impact or the disad (or the "poverty is like genocide" card), and if you find yourself in a situation where they will grant you that, you should just beat them on other arguments. I think you have to consider both the magnitude and the likelihood of the impact.
Other remarks?
E-spec, o-spec,and the other specs... I generally hate these arguments. Note, I am not on the fence. Once one of my former debaters at Nebraska, who shall remain nameless (for his own good), returned from a tournament having lost his elim round on "vagueness." I made fun of him every time I saw him for an entire week. That said, my debaters carry these arguments in their tubs because there is an occasional round that calls for them. If you run them, don't blip through it, and realize that generally, I think this is dumb. The 1AC is only 6 minutes long. Try reading an entire bill in that amount of time. This means the negative has to do some work to win my ballot on these issues. Also under other remarks, I don't like country music or rink. I also that both often have the same message themes.
Dropped arguments: Generally, if you drop an argument you concede it. However, there are times when I will intervene in the name of reasonableness. If you say they lose because they are wearing blue pants, I'm not sure they have to answer that. Or, two years ago, I heard a round with very little clash where the negative said the affirmative solved because the embargo would be in effect, but the affirmative's plan repealed that part of the embargo. The aff dropped that argument and I voted affirmative anyway.
Background: I debated four years at Central Michigan University, back when we did NDT. I coached at CMU as a grad student (1991-1993) as as a temporary faculty member (1999-2000). I coached at the University of Nebraska for two years, prior to coming to Otterbein. I have been at Otterbein for eight years.
Rounds Judged: As of The Frolic, I have judged at the following tournaments this year: Western Kentucky, McKendree, Marshall, Central Missouri Mule Swing, and the Frolic. You do the math.
Stylistic Preferences: I don't care if you speak fast as long as I can understand you, you are using the entire time, you are still a good speaker (not gasping for air, humorous, making good arguments, etc. I also think that you should make a point of looking at the judge as a matter of strategy. I , for one, am not that hard to read. I find confidence pleasing, but excessive cockiness or rudeness a reason to vote against you in a close debate. I say this not to frighten people because my threshold here is high and I have only exercised the right to vote against a cocky debater once in the last 5-10 years. I mean, I think too often debaters do not begin their speeches by saying, "I could concede every one of these arguments, and I still win..." I don't think that's mean, if its true and you are attempting to be nice.
Paradigm: Left to my own, policy-maker. That said, I think policy makers want you to prove that you solve the harm you claim, that your advantages outweigh the disads, etc. I do NOT have to have a disad in order to vote negative.
Do you think topicality should be a voting issue? Yes. When judges say that it isn't, I kind of want my affirmatives to pull out a case on a completely unrelated topic, to see if this will change anyone's mind.
Does there have to be demonstrable ground loss in order for you to vote on T? No, ubut it helps. If you say, I wrote the plan this way couldn't link disads, that likely feeds the negative's T argument.
Would you ever vote on an RVI? Yes, I would. I never thought so, but have seen some incredibly slimy debates in which debaters want to win only by making others drop their arguments. This makes RVI's more compelling to me than they once were. LD was founded on a particular set of principles, and one of them is that you don't win debaters solely because you can talk fast.
Do you strictly enforce NFA rules? Yes, and no. I would say that I think we should be true to the principles of Lincoln-Douglas debate so that it doesn't die out or become something we cannot be proud of having our students pursue. That said, I think most things should be debatable and people who make the case in favor of NFA rules have the advantage of defending something that is worthwhile. So, you must extend the argument that topicality is a voting issue in order to win it. I will listen to argumentation on why a counterplan doesn't have to be non-topical. My personal belief is that they can be topical. But, I will try to let you make these decisions, not me. I also hate kritiks. I just don't think they add much. To me, they are bad disads, counterplans, or justification arguments. You could make them by labeling them this way, but I suspect you won't want to because they will be harder to defend.
Does the negative have to win a disad in order for you to vote negative? No. I would vote on solvency take-outs or topicality. I might vote on inherency, I'd like to say I would. I almost never do.
What kinds of impacts do you find most compelling--enormous impacts or more realistic impacts?
I might as well just say I am old here, but more realistic impacts. Here's the thing, only a lame debater is going to grant you a nuclear war that is completely unlinked to your case impact or the disad (or the "poverty is like genocide" card), and if you find yourself in a situation where they will grant you that, you should just beat them on other arguments. I think you have to consider both the magnitude and the likelihood of the impact.
Other remarks?
E-spec, o-spec,and the other specs... I generally hate these arguments. Note, I am not on the fence. Once one of my former debaters at Nebraska, who shall remain nameless (for his own good), returned from a tournament having lost his elim round on "vagueness." I made fun of him every time I saw him for an entire week. That said, my debaters carry these arguments in their tubs because there is an occasional round that calls for them. If you run them, don't blip through it, and realize that generally, I think this is dumb. The 1AC is only 6 minutes long. Try reading an entire bill in that amount of time. This means the negative has to do some work to win my ballot on these issues. Also under other remarks, I don't like country music or rink. I also that both often have the same message themes.
Dropped arguments: Generally, if you drop an argument you concede it. However, there are times when I will intervene in the name of reasonableness. If you say they lose because they are wearing blue pants, I'm not sure they have to answer that. Or, two years ago, I heard a round with very little clash where the negative said the affirmative solved because the embargo would be in effect, but the affirmative's plan repealed that part of the embargo. The aff dropped that argument and I voted affirmative anyway.